Transcription
You, um, did a TED talk two years ago in June. It was published on June 14th, 2023, and it's done tens of millions of views on YouTube. It is titled "The Next Global Superpower is Not Who You Think."
Yeah. >> And I was looking at the comment section earlier, and some of the top comments are, "You called it a year ago and you were 100% right." There's another one here saying, "Hello, writing to you from a year in the future. I have some bad news about 2025. You were right."
What were you right about? >> I was, I guess what they're saying, I, this you and I have been talking about the US and China and traditional geopolitics. What I was saying is that increasingly the world is moving beyond geopolitics, and that the most important new global leaders aren't countries, they're technology companies that are writing their own rules.
I was looking at how the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that that war started not on the 24th of February, but the 23rd of February, when Microsoft found out about all of the cyber strikes that were hitting Ukraine and made the US government and the Ukrainian government aware of it. I look at Elon Musk and providing Starlink. If it wasn't for that, I'm not sure that the Ukrainian government was going to be able to fight these guys on the ground. They wouldn't have been able to communicate. Zelensky might be gone. These are companies. The US government at that point was scared about sending all the military support, but the companies were making a big difference.
Now I see that these new AI tools, like we saw with Anthropic and Mythos. >> For anyone that doesn't know, Anthropic released a new AI model, which they say is so capable that it presents the world with a really fundamental security risk to all of our technology. They say in their report that in testing this new model, this new, um, type of AI could find security vulnerabilities in lots of different applications and software applications that we use. So essentially, it posed a cybersecurity risk. It could hack >> a lot of banks and >> critical infrastructure, your power grid, water systems, anything with software. And and not just like the things that a hacker could get to, but every bug that could be exploited. So, it's so powerful that they couldn't release it because it would have been an immediate systemic risk to the global economy and our security. >>
And do you believe them? I say this because I heard some people debating whether this was marketing talk for them as a company to say, "Look, look how powerful we are that we're not going to release this model because it's, it's going to cause that much harm." Or do you think they are being responsible? >> It is inconceivable to me that a company that is this capable of raising money and this capable of talking to the markets is not going to have a communication strategy that is fully aligned with that. >>
So, of course, there's marketing here, >> but this was a real risk. When you have Jerome Powell, the chief of the Fed, and Scott Bessent, the Secretary of Treasury, looking at this and immediately calling an urgent meeting of all the CEOs of the banks, saying, "We have to deploy this internally." And you have JP Morgan, Jamie Diamond, is by far the best at cybersecurity in terms of the big banks and the big US institutions and considers this a five-alarm fire. I, I take this very seriously. Mhm. >>
I think this is actually a big deal that also happens to be useful for Anthropic's marketing, not least because Anthropic had just been in a big fight with the Defense Department and the US Defense Department saying, "We don't want these Anthropic guys because, like, they're not, they're woke, right?" I mean, they don't, they refuse to let us use and deploy their AI in our targeting or our surveillance. So, we're going to take them out of our system. Well, turns out you can't afford to take these guys completely out of your system because what they're doing is too important for American national security. So, the timing is convenient from that perspective. But this risk is real, and it's real because it needs to be deployed immediately to find these bugs and to patch them before other people have those tools, because other people will have these tools in very short order. >>
And so on the scale of risks that we have in front of us here, critical, severe, >> yep, also severe. Okay, >> again, would be critical if we were talking about two years out because we're talking about this year, and it's already April. It just happened. I would say severe, but my God, underappreciated because the amount of attention this gets on headlines >> compared to Iran or Venezuela, compared to China, is still tiny. >>
And is that because of unemployment because AI is going to take our jobs, or is it something else? Is it the nuclear? What is it? No, I mean, if, if what I just mentioned with Anthropic, like, if suddenly your systems are hackable by anyone that has access to this tool, your markets are going to go down. Your banks aren't going to work. Your data is going to be stolen. You know, your, your, imagine if the Russians have that capacity, what they would do with it. If the Iranians today had that capacity, what they would do with it. They will. The, these AI tools are are becoming available to anyone with a laptop or a cell phone. So, I mean, suddenly, in the same way that the war in Russia, Ukraine, Russia is much bigger than Ukraine, and yet in the last three months, Ukraine has actually taken territory back from Russia. How is that possible? Technology, drones, right? They have become the most capable drone producer in the world at scale. So much so that when the Iranians were attacked by the United States and they counter-hit, what did the Americans do? They called Zelensky, remember the guy that didn't say thank you in the White House, and they said, "Could we have your help with your drone technologies in figuring out how we combat Iran for our Gulf allies?" So, technology is changing the world so fast, and it turns out that the biggest way it's changing our security and the economy is AI.
On this point of AI, I actually was watching a video this morning before you arrived, which I, I thought I'd show you because, um, it's quite, it's quite dystopian, but what you'll see in this video is true, and it's happening around the world, and I don't think anybody has any ideas. This is the video. I'll play it for those of you that are looking at the screen at the moment. Can you tell what's going on in this video from watching it? It looks to me, um, like, uh, they're, uh, the work that they are doing is being, uh, monitored real-time. Um, presumably by some external source. Um, you're going to suggest to me that the external source that's monitoring them is not a human being, but is artificial intelligence. >> Yes. Kind of. What's happening is a company has paid these Indian workers to wear cameras on their heads >> to watch their hands. >> Yeah. To train the AI so that the AI can do that job in the future. >> To remove the workers from those jobs. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So, it's kind of like sitting on the branch of a tree and you yourself cutting the. There's this meme I'll throw up on the screen. It's of a guy sat on the branch of a tree and he's cutting the branch himself. And what you're seeing here is because the AI companies and the robotics companies need real-world data of these jobs being done, they're now asking the workers in the factories to record themselves doing it so that they can replace them. >> Yeah. >>
It's, um, I laugh because it's slightly terrifying. It's slightly terrifying, and yet it's also slightly empowering, depending on what we decide to do with the wealth that comes from this, because let's face it, most human beings do not want that work to be what self-actualizes them. >>
What kind of political system do you need or social system do you need in such a world where a lot of the work that we do today is being done by these intelligent machines and a huge amount of people don't have work? I was saying to you before we started recording, a friend of mine called me the other day, and he had had a conversation with one of the most successful technologists in the world that everybody knows, and he said, "Next year is the year where the unemployment because of AI really will take hold, and people are going to get increasingly annoyed." They also said that they think the Democrats are going to win the election because the impact of AI is going to be so severe next year in terms of unemployment that people are going to associate the Republicans with being the pro-AI party. And I saw another report last week saying that AI is now less popular than ICE in the United States. And just as a podcaster who has conversations about this, I know people are, are not happy. I know they're not happy. I see it in the comment section, in part because we don't see it flowing down and making people's lives better. We see major corporations getting richer. >>
And so the funny thing, that video you showed me, most people in the global south are very excited, enthusiastic about AI because they think it's going to give them tools to improve their human capital, to improve their opportunities. China, the Chinese are very excited about AI because they think that it's going to make their lives better. Mhm. >> The Americans, the Europeans are not. They worry that this is actually going to undermine their jobs, particularly their white-collar jobs, >> uh, their knowledge worker jobs. And and what I think is going to happen politically, I, I don't agree that we're going to see massive unemployment in the US next year. I think there's going to be much more friction. And most CEOs don't want to get rid of a lot of their workers unless they have to. So unless there's a major economic downturn that gives them that excuse, I think it's going to take a lot longer. And I also think that social mobilization, longshoremen in the United States, like said, "No AI, you're going to protect our jobs." And they were willing to actually demonstrate. They mobilized, and it kept AI out. There'll be a lot of, like, you know, resistance that will slow this process down. But what I do think is going to happen, I think you'll see it politically. I was talking to, uh, someone I know, um, reasonably well, uh, a senator, US senator, who was saying, "Can't talk right now," and pro-technology person, pro-business person, centrist, right? Someone you and I would recognize as such, say, "I can't talk about data centers. I've never seen people, my constituents, so upset about an issue as they do about data centers." >> AI data centers. >> AI. They said, "No jobs, energy prices going up, water prices going up. Zoning looks horrible in their neighborhoods. They're growing like topsy. Huge amount of investment. Everyone hates these things."
I, I mean, Trump in the United States won on the back of a lot of men who, many of whom had good jobs and were making good money, but they didn't necessarily have advanced degrees. >> And they felt like the world was moving away from them. They saw robotics and automation on their factory lines. They saw free trade and jobs going to much poorer, much, you know, less expensive labor around the world, China especially, but India, other countries. They said they saw immigrants coming in, but you're not taking care of me and my family, so why am I letting that happen? You see this in Europe, too. This is the Nigel Farage movement. Like lots of stuff, right? They voted Trump in not once, but twice. Despite everything he is, everything he stands for, they voted for. We haven't seen women with advanced degrees, urban and suburban, worried about their jobs and worried about their kids. And that wave of populism is coming absolutely in 2028. And that is AI is a very big piece of that. AI, data centers, and the rest. So in that regard, I agree that there's going to be a real political wave here. And I don't yet know who the political figures are that are going to respond to that. I, I don't think that person today exists in the political spectrum. I haven't seen that person. >>
It appears that the least popular job, or least popular people in society at the moment, are AI CEOs. I mean, you're probably seeing what, um, what's going on. >> We saw what Sam Altman just had, you know, the, the Molotov cocktail that was actually thrown at his, uh, >> and then yesterday again, they said someone shot at his house yesterday. Yeah. >> Yesterday night again. >> Yeah. Which obviously nobody should support violence of this type. >> My God, no. No, but it's not surprising. And we also had the CEO of United Healthcare gunned down, you know, a year ago, just a few blocks from where you and I are having this conversation right now. There is general anger at the elite. And it's true that the wealthiest people in the United States right now happen to be those tech owners.
Is there a solution here where the technology, which presents us with tremendous potential upsides, can be, be thrive and be successful and make our lives better, but also the average person, the working-class people, can also capitalize and benefit from this technology? >> Of course there is. >>
What does that look like? >> Well, I mean, first of all, these technologies are already doing extraordinary things in improving productivity and in reducing waste. I mean, recycling doesn't work very well, but with AI, you can recycle in a way that would allow you to actually get that trash product back into a productive format. Who wouldn't want the ability to make micro-adjustments in, um, the way that an airplane is navigating real-time because of AI that reduces fuel consumption by 10%? Or improve agricultural use. In Ethiopia, you've got over a hundred million people, and they don't know what to plant and where and when. Suddenly, you optimize for that. They have cheaper food. Like, these are amazing things. Every day I see uses for these technologies in companies around the world that blow my mind. But I also see, and again, I focus on politics. And if we blow ourselves up, it's not going to be because of technology. If we blow ourselves up, it's going to be because of people and politics. >>
What do you mean by that? >> That the system is deploying these technologies in inhumane ways. It's allowing the benefits of the opportunities to be captured by a small number of individuals, a small number of companies that write their own rules and don't care about people that are getting angry. So when you ask, violence is the wrong thing. But if you're seeing that people are getting so angry that they're starting to do things that they see the only way that they think that they can respond is outside of the legal framework. It's not by voting for somebody new, but it's by mass action or even violent action. Then the politics are really broken. >>
So, do we need like universal basic income or something? Or does there need to be an AI tax? >> I don't think that you go from everybody has a full-time job or aspires to a full-time job to universal basic income in a year. I, I, I don't think that happens. But I could easily see pilot programs that say, instead of a five-day work week, in the following areas that we think are going to be disrupted, it's going to be a four-day work week or three-day work week. And we're going to pay you the same amount of money, but that additional day every week is going to be on AI training that will allow you to have a job, either be more effective in your existing job because the only people that know how to deploy these tools are going to have a job another three or five years, or will allow you to transition. But you've got to start spending the money on that now. And this, that, that guy that you had that conversation with, I've been watching him publicly. He's not part of the solution. He's saying, "I think the Democrats are going to win. Oh well, I'll be fine. I'm still worth a lot of money, but I'm not going to do anything to actually help facilitate this." Like, if you, if the people that are most capable of being aware of these challenges and of addressing them are instead all in winner-take-all mode, then obviously we're going to have a breakdown in society.
It's a tricky situation, isn't it? Because we've seen what happens when governments get involved in technology sometimes, you know, even in the UK for, and the European Union. Bloody hell. I remember speaking to, I don't know if I have permission to say his name either, but he is the CTO of one of the biggest technology companies in the world, and he was explaining to me that they can't release their features. This particular piece of hardware, we can't even release it in Europe because the European Union have so much regulation. >> Yeah. >>
That they've actually created a bunch of issues for us as companies. One of them was that in this particular device, the European Union demand that the battery can be taken out and put back in again. And what this actually means, he was explaining to me, is that we're going to have to buy loads of batteries and keep them on the shelf, and then they're going to go bad, and actually, it's going to be worse for the environment. But also, it means that the devices are no longer waterproof. So more devices are going to break, which is even worse for the environment. And this overregulation that's >> which means that the Europeans are nowhere in terms of competitive. >> They know they're not competitive. >>
So he, and you know what he said to me? He goes, um, and I don't think what the Europeans don't realize is we just don't need their market anymore. He said, Brazil's coming online, and all these other big markets are coming online as buyers. So we can just decide just to not sell to to Europe. >>
So, there are three systems out there, right? Broadly speaking. One system, the United States system, most power in the hands of the private sector, so much so that they're able to capture the regulatory process, write their own regulations. That turns out that system drives an enormous amount of growth and wealth. The problem is that lots of average Americans do not benefit from it. Mhm. >> Because nobody is looking out for them. Then they get angry, and then they lash out, right? The Chinese system, where the state actually captures the private sector, and they say what the private sector can and can't do. And frequently, they own the private sector, state-owned enterprises, right? And that system drives an enormous amount of growth over the long term, but the people have no say over what is and what is not allowed. And that creates a lot of dissent and this lying flat. We're not a part of the system and the solution. Then you have the Europeans. And the European system is very oriented towards, "We want to make sure that the social contract works for the citizens. We're very interested in, like, having all of the benefits that people need," but we can't afford them because our system is so heavily regulated and so anti-entrepreneurial that we don't drive the growth that would be necessary to keep paying for the people. Right? So obviously, each of these systems have challenges, but the problem comes not in the nature of the system, but in when they become extreme.
Americans today want a new deal, whatever that new deal looks like. And Trump won because of that. He won because he positioned himself as the outsider that would make sure those things happen. Right? He was the guy that was going to end the wars. He was the guy that was going to invest in the United States. America first, not these other countries first. People like that. Take care of your people. That's what they want. People are voting for very simple things. They want to be taken care of. They want to have opportunities for themselves and their families and their communities. They don't want to feel despair. That's what the American dream was all about. That's why my grandparents came here. My grandma, Armenian, you know, fled her family fled the genocide. She came on Ellis Island. That's why I'm here. I came and I started a company in a land that had great opportunity. But most Americans don't believe that applies to them anymore. And you asking me all these questions about AI. The answer is very simple. Give these people the opportunity to create a dream for themselves and their families in their own countries. If they don't have that, they will eventually revolt against you. >>
Is that what history tells us happens next in such a situation where the people feel more and more powerless and they feel like they have less and less opportunity? >> It doesn't happen everywhere. I mean, let's face it. We've got 25 million people in North Korea that have been, you know, ruled by, you know, a cult figure who they essentially worship for decades now. So, history doesn't necessarily tell us that it, the story always goes well. But in a democracy, >> in a democracy, sometimes democracies go bad, but what we see frequently is pushback against people that are kleptocratic, but it's people that put themselves above the system. And we've seen that in many cases in many democracies all over the world.
If you love the D CEO brand and you watch this channel, please do me a huge favor. Become part of the 15% of the viewers on this channel that have hit the subscribe button. It helps us tremendously, and the bigger the channel gets, the bigger the guests.